You can translate this page by selecting a language from the drop down.

Mock Trial

In 2011 a Mock Ecocide Trial was held in the Supreme Court of England and Wales.

Two fictional Chief Executive Officers were put on trial for causing ccocide in the Athabasca tar sands and the Gulf of Mexico. The evidence was based on true events and publicly available documents. The trial was not scripted; the jury was vetted and the legal teams included some of the key figures in the UK legal field. Michael Mansfield QC and his legal team prosecuted; Chris Parker QC and his legal team defended.

A draft Ecocide Act (UK) was applied, to mirror the international crime of ecocide as if it had already been implemented. In addition, restorative justice provisions were included. This was the first time that a law yet to be put in place was road-tested. The court process proved to be very instructive, and allowed for the draft law to be applied and examined from a number of angles to establish whether or not it was viable to prosecute such a crime. The testing of the draft law was a success. The Mock Ecocide Trial demonstrated the viability of a law of ecocide: prosecuting ecocide crime has practical application.

The trial garnered international media coverage including Financial Times, Le Monde, Time magazine, Deutsche Welle, Al Jazeera, and Canada’s CBC. Thanks to Sky News, the whole of the trial was broadcast live worldwide online.

The Verdict

It’s official, jury unanimous: the Athabasca Tar Sands found to be a crime of Ecocide. On the 30th of September 2011, in the UK Supreme Court, it took just 50 minutes for the jury to return with two unanimous guilty convictions of Ecocide against the CEO’s of the oil companies operating in the Athabasca Tar Sands. They returned a not guilty verdict for the charge of Ecocide of the Oil Spill.

It was a tense moment waiting for the jury to return with their verdicts; this was not a guaranteed outcome. The court was packed, as was the hall outside where it was being live streamed online by SKY News. People around the world were watching online and following updates on twitter – 120,000 tweets for #ecocidetrial were recorded by lunchtime. It was a remarkable feat to bring into the courtroom for just one day some of the issues that would arise in court for a trial of Ecocide.

Here are some responses from some of the supporters of the Ecocide trial:

I fully believe in this cause. Making Ecocide a recognised law will place a cap on the irresponsible actions of fat cats who hide behind corporate shields to destroy lives and harm the planet.

Nnimmo Bassey

Chair of Friends of the Earth international and Executive Director of Environmental Rights Action

Once upon a time people did grievous harm to the environment without fully understanding the consequences of their actions. That defence is no longer available, and that sure knowledge we now have entails equally sure moral obligations. In this context, the idea of establishing the crime of Ecocide is both timely and compelling.

Jonathon Porritt

Former Chair, Sustainable Development Commission

The Ecocide trial is a very important step in waking us up to the violence which is the foundation of the current economy. We need another model that is non-violent, a model which makes peace with the earth. Ecocide must stop. The ideal of limitless growth is leading to limitless violations of the rights of the Earth and of the rights of nature. This is Ecocide. We need to stop the destruction of the very basis of life on Earth and of human survival.

Restorative Justice

Penalties available under our current legal system no longer match the complexity of crimes where there can be various offenders and a number of injured parties, including non-humans. Courts trying the crime of Ecocide could offer restorative justice sentencing alongside traditional sentencing. Read the sentencing guidelines here.

In a Restorative Hearing, the person(s) convicted of Ecocide are invited to engage in a round-circle dialogue of deep enquiry to explore possible restoration and remediation requirements. Not only for humans, it can also include restoration for the benefit of non-humans, whatever is identified as the harmed ecosystem. In the case of non-humans, experts such as an ornithologist, or an ecologist can speak to represent their best interests. This is similar to how a guardian will represent a child or a mentally disabled person in court. A skilled facilitator holds the space in which the parties present can explore possible solutions, and they may reach an agreement as to how to heal the harm. The agreement reached will be different for each case, and is subject to judicial orders. The judge then has the option of imposing a sentence that can include specific steps for reparations and restoration to be put in place.

Restorative Justice has been used widely in other types of crimes where individuals and communities have been harmed. Evidence so far demostrates the effectiveness of restorative justice provisions to deter crime. For more information of this process visit the UK Restorative Justice Council website.

Restoring Justice: Bannerman & Tench sentenced for ecocide crime

On Saturday 31st March 2012 the sentencing of two fictional chief executive officers – Robin Bannerman of Global Petroleum Company (GPC) and John Tench of Glamis Group (GG) – took place in a world first event organised by the Hamilton Group. Bannerman and Tench had been found guilty of committing Ecocide in the Athabasca tar sands, at the mock Ecocide trial held earlier in the Supreme Court of England and Wales in September 2011.

The Sentence

Following representations by prosecuting barrister Michael Mansfield QC, both offenders were offered the opportunity to enter into a restorative justice conference with the victims. Bannerman accepted whilst Tench declined.

The judge held, on the basis of outcome of the successful RJ hearing, that Bannerman’s sentence of six months be deferred subject to the RJ agreements being upheld. Mr Tench however, who refused to take part in the restorative justice process, was sentenced to four years in jail and was also subject to a formal Restoration Order. The Restoration Order required Tench to undertake a number of measures including suspension of operations in the Tar Sands until the area affected was restored to an acceptable level, and for the company to pay for the financial costs of restoration.

The judge held, on the basis of outcome of the successful RJ hearing, that Bannerman’s sentence of six months be deferred subject to the RJ agreements being upheld. Mr Tench however, who refused to take part in the restorative justice process, was sentenced to four years in jail and was also subject to a formal Restoration Order. The Restoration Order required Tench to undertake a number of measures including suspension of operations in the Tar Sands until the area affected was restored to an acceptable level, and for the company to pay for the financial costs of restoration.

Is Restorative Justice possible?

The Mock Ecocide Trial demonstrated the legal premise of establishing Guardians (representatives) to speak on behalf of the non-human world within a governance structure. In a number of countries and in different legal contexts (eg Child Care law in the UK provides Guardians to speak on behalf of the child), Guardians are already established. In March 2017, the High Court of Uttarakhand, India, decreed that the river Ganges and Yamama, as well as all their tributaries and streams (120 rivers in total) are legal persons.In New Zealand, the Te Awa Tupua Act grants the Whanganui river will have its own legal identity with all corresponding rights, duties and responsibilities (see here for more details). This is the emergence of a wider Earth law approach; both India and New Zealand have granted legal civil rights to non-human entities; the next step is to implement the final tier of justice. See the Governance Pyramid for more detail of how this can be done.